Sunday, April 8, 2012

44-CENT ISLAM STAMP IS FOREVER

The 44th President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama and Muslims are thrilled about the new blood red Muslim 44-cent Forever stamp. Make sure you don’t get stuck with these when you buy a roll of Forever stamps. Demand the ‘NON-TERRORIST’ version.

CONFIRMED BY THEUSPSDivided States (H/T SilverLady) Barack Hussein Obama, who recently proclaimed, “We are no longer a Christian nation” to the delight of Muslims worldwide as they continue their war against Judaism and Christianity, is pleased to see the final and permanent creation of a Muslim stamp commemorating the 2 most important festivals in the Islamic calendars. The final Islamic 44 cent stamp has become permanent while Obama, the 44th President, expressed his appreciation for the accomplishment in a recent Islamic relations dinner in Washington.

The Muslim holidays Eid al-Fitr and Eid al-Adha were honored on the US Postal Stamp, the “Forever Stamp” in May of 2011. On these days, Muslims wish each other Eid mubarak, (no, that’s not a translation for, “We Love Mubarak”. No it simply means “blessed festival.”The phrase shown in gold calligraphy on the stamp can also be paraphrased as, “May your religious holiday be blessed.” This phrase was chosen over the proposed “Allahu Akbar” in fear that the latter might offend some Americans and Israelis who associate that phrase with Islamic Extremists who shout it just prior to launching their murderous attacks.

Activist claims 'thug tactics' used to launch career also employed in 2008

In 2008, Palmer showed up at the Democratic National Convention in Denver as a Hillary Clinton supporter, still resentful toward Obama for knocking her and three other candidates off the ballot for an Illinois state Senate seat some 13 years earlier by challenging voter signatures.

“The Democratic primary, what I witnessed, was one of the most appalling, disgusting things I’ve ever seen in my entire life,” Hollywood-based digital photographer Michele Thomas told WND in a joint interview with Hollywood film producer Bettina Viviano.

Thomas began as a volunteer for the 2008 Clinton campaign then launched a petition drive when she learned the Democratic National Committee was not going to allow delegates to cast their votes for Clinton at the convention.

“I just felt like the entire process was being eviscerated and rules were being changed all along to ensure that no matter what, Barack Obama was the nominee,” Thomas said.

“And I felt compelled to take a stand to have the process in which we decide who our candidates are that we vote for be upheld,” she said. “And that the peoples’ votes are held up from the ballot box to the convention where the delegates bring those votes forward.”

Thomas said she received death threats as she gathered the 300 signed and notarized petitions required by Democratic National Convention rules to prompt a count of votes for Hillary Clinton on the first ballot.

Knowing how Obama had defeated Palmer in his first election campaign in 1996, Thomas required the delegates who signed the petition to notarize their signatures on two copies. One copy was sent to a Post Office box and the other brought to the convention in Denver.

Thomas said she did it “so there was no way the DNC or the Obama campaign, his lawyers, could knock my signatures off this petition.”

Thomas took three months off work to conduct the petition drive, foregoing considerable income.

She explained why she did it and why she is speaking out about it now.

“I’m a little scared right now, there’s no doubt about it,” she admitted, “but at some point in your life, if you are fortunate enough, you are faced with the decision of doing something bigger than yourself.”

‘Bare-knuckle’ politics
In 1995, Obama saw his opening to run for elected office when Palmer decided to give up her state Senate seat and run for Congress in a special election.

In 1986, as editor of the Black Press Review, Palmer was the only African-American to cover the 27th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in Moscow.

She went out of her way to make Obama her handpicked successor.

To get Obama’s state Senate race off to a good start, Palmer arranged a function to be held for a few influential liberals in the district at the Hyde Park home of Weather Underground founders Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn.

It’s not likely Palmer would have selected Obama to be her successor in the Illinois Legislature or have introduced him to the Hyde Park political community at the Ayers-Dohrn home unless she saw an affinity between Ayers and Dorhn’s radical SDS Weather Underground history, her own history of openly professed communism and Obama.

After Palmer stepped aside for Obama to take her seat, she suffered an unexpected electoral defeat in the November 1995 Democratic Party primary. She came in a distant third, behind Jesse Jackson and Emil Jones Jr., a power-wielder who would become Obama’s mentor after Obama was elected to fill Palmer’s seat.

After losing the special congressional election, Palmer reversed her decision and decided she wanted her Illinois Senate seat back.

Palmer supporters asked Obama to step aside, but he refused and decided to challenge Palmer’s eligibility for the ballot using what the Chicago Tribune described as the “bare-knuckle arts of Chicago electoral politics.”

Obama hired a fellow Harvard Law School alumnus to challenge the legitimacy of the signatures Palmer received on petitions to qualify for the ballot.

Once he set on the strategy, Obama kept challenging petitions, until he succeeded in getting all four of his Democratic primary rivals forced off the ballot, enabling him to run unchallenged.

Viviano described Obama’s strategy in defeating Palmer in 1995 as a betrayal.

“Alice Palmer was his mentor who had asked Bill Ayers to throw that coming-out party for Obama,” she explained.

Thomas said she met Palmer in person at the 2008 convention in Denver.

“I actually had my petitions in my backpack,” Thomas remembered. “I walked right up to her and I said, ‘Alice Palmer, you have no idea how you have affected my life and what I’ve just done.’”

Thomas explained to Palmer how she designed her petition to make sure Obama could not get lawyers to disqualify her signatures.

“I had every single one of these petitions notarized because I know what happened to you,” Thomas told Palmer upon meeting her in Denver. “I have them in my backpack right now. Do you want to see them?”

Palmer said yes.

“She started going through them, and she got tears in her eyes when she saw that they were notarized,” Thomas recalled. “She said, ‘Oh my God, This is what I should have done, this is what I should have done.”

Thomas told Palmer that the only reason she got her signatures individually notarized was to prevent the Democratic National Committee or the Obama campaign from throwing out her signatures to disqualify the petition.

“This was all because of what [Obama] did to all of his challengers,” Viviano stressed. “It just was outrageous to disqualify these people that way. This is how moral and ethical our so-called president is. His own mentor, who went out of her way to support him in his career – he turned around with a knife and put it in her back and had her challenged off the ballot in a way that was so amoral and unethical, and she became a Hillary supporter.”

Thomas remembered that Palmer pulled her aside at the Denver presidential nominating convention and told Thomas that she wanted to tell her a story.

Palmer explained to Thomas that after Obama’s lawyers disqualified her signatures in 1996, she spent the next few months walking door-to-door making sure her signatures were valid.

“She said every single one of them was correct, and they should have not been knocked off,” Thomas said.

Thomas recalled that Palmer wanted to have dinner with her that night. But the person who introduced her to Palmer later called and said that the dinner was off because Palmer had been threatened.

Viviano shared Thomas’ outrage.

“America doesn’t do scared like that,” she insisted. “This is a First Amendment country, freedom of speech and now, all of a sudden, there are people cowering in the corner that are afraid to tell the truth about things.

“This is like living under Chavez or Castro,” she said. “It’s ridiculous.”

For the first time in his several visits to Dearborn, Quran-burning Florida Pastor Terry Jones’s demonstration Saturday in front of the city Islamic Center of America was rather uneventful. Jones and supporters gathered in front of Dearborn’s largest mosque Saturday afternoon to speak out against what they say are signs of Sharia–or Islamic law–in Dearborn and other U.S. cities.

DetroitNewsJones also called for a worldwide burning of the Koran on April 28 if an imprisoned pastor in Iran isn’t freed from a death sentence after converting from Islam to Christianity. ”I’m asking the imam of the Islamic Center here in Dearborn to work with me to free Minister Youcef,” said Jones, of Youcef Nadarkhani, currently facing death for preaching Christianity in Iran.

Dearborn PatchWhile several of Jones’ supporters were heckled by counterprotesters on their way to the grassy area in front of the mosque, no arrests were made and things stayed relatively peaceful.

This Saturday–almost one year to the day since Jones’s first attempt to speak in front of the mosque was thwarted by local officials–he and his supporters were nowhere near the counterprotesters. Instead BAMN members and several local residents stood near Ford Road east of the mosque; some held signs and yelled chants against Jones, while others said they were just there to watch.

Last year, Jones and his associate Wayne Sapp were found “likely to breach the peace” by a jury in Dearborn after their planned protest on Good Friday brought them to the 19th District Court. In that decision, Dearborn Chief Judge Mark Somers ordered Jones and Sapp to pay a $1 peace bond each, and to stay away from the Islamic Center and adjacent area for three years. They refused, and were briefly jailed. Jones and Sapp appealed the ruling, and a Detroit judge overturned the ban on Nov. 11.

Arab American News“We think that people like Terry Jones should be stopped from building a movement,” said Donna Stern, a Detroit resident and BAMN member. “This is a racist, anti-immigrant, anti-Islamic movement. This man is the perfect example of someone who would incite the type of violence that we saw occur in California when a woman was murdered for wearing a headscarf.” (Except for the fact that she wasn’t murdered for wearing a headscarf and was probably murdered by a family member or friend of a family member)

Tristan Taylor, another BAMN member echoed in on some statements of his own. “We need to make it clear that we won’t tolerate racist thugs and hate speech in our communities. We need to treat this threat seriously and making sure that we are not silent,” Taylor stated. “Hitler started off small and the approach people took was to ignore him. That gave him even more opportunities to build a stronger base. That’s why it’s important that we stop his message now before it grows,” he added.(It’s always amusing when people compare sharia opponents to Hitler, apparently ignorant of the fact that Hitler and the Mufti of Jerusalem worked together to destroy the Jews)

Did Barack Obama’s draconian defense budget cuts contribute to the crash of the F-18?

The Defense budget cuts have been coming since Obama took office. But the full impact of these cuts so far is nothing compared to the nearly $1 trillion in cuts that will effectively gut the military. These cuts won’t go back to the taxpayers or paying off the debt, but instead will be added to the coffers of the already overbloated entitlement (free handouts) society he is creating in order to destroy America as we know it.

ZbigniewMazurak Contrary to what Democrats would have you believe, there isn’t a lot of waste in defense, and certainly not $100 billion per year. Not even close.

The sequester, if allowed to proceed, would cut defense spending WAY too deeply (on top of all the defense cuts already implemented and scheduled, including the $487 billion in defense cuts unveiled by Panetta in January): by $600 billion. In total, the cuts would amount to $1.087 trillion over a decade, not counting the savings resulting from withdrawal from Afghanistan. Such deep cuts would gut the military. As a consequence of them, the DOD would have to, inter alia:

Cancel the F-35 program completely without replacement, and thus betray foreign program partners

Eliminate the ICBM leg of the nuclear triad completely while cutting the bomber fleet by 2/3 and cancelling the bomber replacement program

Delay the SSBN replacement program

Cancel all except the most basic upgrades for F-15s and F-16s while cutting the fighter fleet by 35%

Cut personnel benefits programs to such depth that it would break faith with them (e.g. massive cuts in DOD health programs and retirement benefits), thus discouraging people from joining the military or reenlisting

As testified by Obama’s own SECDEF, as well as all Joint Chiefs, lower-ranking generals, and other DOD officials, and as confirmed by many independent analysts and retired officers, sequestration would completely gut the military. For JCS Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey, sequestration would produce “the definition of a hollow force”. For LTG Mills of the Marine Corps, “sequestration would break faith with those defending America.”

The HASC has come to similar conclusions and also warns that most of the damage that would be done to defense would be irreversible. For example, if you cancel a shipbuilding program that a shipyard relies on, the shipyard will have to close and be liquidated and will not be there to reopen when you’re finally ready to start buying ships again.

Moreover, first tier BCA-mandated budget cuts plus sequestration ($108.7 bn a year on average) plus zeroing out OCO spending (as a result of the inevitable US withdrawal from Afghanistan, $88.5 bn per year on average) means cutting the military budget by a total 32.11% – much deeper than the cuts made after the Vietnam War (26%) and almost as deep as the cuts that followed the Cold War (34%-35%). Now think about it, Dear Reader: we now know that the post-Vietnam and post-Cold-War defense cuts WRECKED the military. So how can we honest expect this round of defense cuts NOT to gut the military? We can’t. Simple math alone should tell you that, even if you don’t believe Obama’s own SECDEF, Deputy SECDEF, and Joint Chiefs of Staff, as well as many lower-ranking generals, retired military officers, and independent analysts.

Speaking of the Joint Chiefs, there are only three possibilities:

1) That all of the Joint Chiefs are deliberately lying to scaremonger the Congress and the American people;2) That all of the Joint Chiefs are ignorant guys who don’t know what they’re talking about; or3) That Panetta, Carter, and the Joint Chiefs are right about sequestration.

Furthermore, not only would sequestration gut defense, it would be extremely unjust. The DOD would be punished for CONGRESS’ FAILURE to design a fiscally responsible federal budget; and even though its entire budget accounts for just 19% of federal spending, and the core defense budget (which would be the portion hit with the sequester’s cuts) accounts for less than 15%. Yet, this 15% portion of the federal budget would bear a full 50% of sequestration’s cuts. This would be deeply unjust and disproportionate, in addition to gutting the military.

To sum up, defense spending sequestration would completely gut the military and thus imperil the country; would be deeply unjust (punishing the DOD for Congressional failure); would be disproportionate; is not necessary to reduce the deficit or balance the budget; and would save much less money than conservative plans that don’t cut defense spending (such as the RSC’s and the Heritage Foundation’s plans) would save.

And, as Ronald Reagan said, anyone who proposes to cut defense spending must be forced to say which defense programs the Nation can do without, why, and how it would protect itself without them.

Obama has a habit of pressuring senior generals to change their testimonies to suit their agenda. Just ask 4-star General William Shelton, the commander of USAF’s Space Command, who says Obama pressured him to do just that.

It is quite conceivable that the Joint Chiefs were also pressured to testify, wrongly, that the $487 bn in defense cuts ordered by Obama is survivable.

General Dempsey himself, before he was confirmed, testified that deep defense cuts would weaken defense, that “national security” spending did not cause the deficit problem and that cutting it will not solve it.

More recently, he said, quite correctly, that sequestration of defense spending (the second round of BCA-ordered cuts, totalling another $600 bn) would mean “we would no longer be a global power”. Today, under obvious pressure from the White House and other defense cuts supporters, he claims he was misunderstood and that he only meant that “we wouldn’t be the global power that we know ourselves to be today.”

No, General, that’s not what you originally said. That’s what the White House now tells you to say. I’m sure that if the White House told you “say that the sequester would be harmless”, you would be saying exactly that.

While I wouldn’t call the generals liars or fools, this is not the first time that someone has coached witnesses to deliver a favorable testimony.

No matter how hard the generals and civilian DOD bureaucrats may insist to the contrary, the FACT is that Obama’s defense budget cuts mandate drove the pseudo-strategy the DOD issued in January, not the other way around. Obama demanded deep defense cuts, and the DOD had to produce a “strategy” to fit these cuts. That’s what happened, despite the generals’ and civilian bureaucrats’ pretensions to the contrary.

Obama demanded $400 bn in defense cuts on April 13th, 2011, during a budget issues speech at the GWU – long before there even was any talk of a debt ceiling deal. At the time, even his own SECDEF, Robert Gates, was surprised of the defense cuts mandate, and the DOD had to start working out how to implement them. Then, on August 1st, Obama negotiated a debt ceiling deal that mandated $487 bn in cuts from “security spending”, which Obama slapped exclusively on the DOD.

Today being Easter Sunday, and because of the turbulent times in which we live, I thought it quite proper on this most holy of days to offer my opinion on what is a Christian, especially since we have a man occupying the White House who is anything but the Christian he professes himself to be.

We all know many claim to be Christian, those that love nothing better than to say that their church is the one true church, that their way and their church’s way is the ONLY true way to God. I believe nothing could be further from the truth.

I believe one is a true Christian if they believe deep within their heart that they are a Christian, and if they profess a belief in and love for Jesus Christ, and try to live their lives according to his teachings. On this, one might fail at times but God does not expect us to be perfect just to try our best, for if we falter He will forgive us because He knows we are not perfect.

I believe a true Christian is a person who has put their faith and trust in Jesus, including His death on the cross as payment for our sins, and His resurrection on the third day.

I believe a Christian has love for others, a compassion for those hurting, and is one who knows the meaning of the word, ‘friend’ as well as knowing and accepting the word ‘enemy.’

I believe a true Christian never willingly hurts or betrays another, and never uses God as an excuse or as a front for their personal or perceived shortcomings, and with that I believe a true Christian can question his faith, because even Jesus asked ‘why’ on the cross.

I believe a true Christian can keep his humanity even while giving his heart and soul over to God, for that personal humanity, unique unto to each of us, is what separates each of us from all others.

I believe there is nothing wrong with being of this world while at the same time being of His world, as long as one keeps God in their hearts at all times and His love in their souls, while still keeping their humanness intact. God does not demand that we all be the same but only that we love Him unconditionally.

I believe being a true Christian is not about obey, obey, obey nor is about subjugation to any church’s specific doctrine as God gave us free will to make our own choices, and that includes how we choose or not choose to worship and honor Him, for we will all answer to Him and Him alone on our judgment day.

I believe church indoctrination can sometimes be counterproductive, and can actually turn some away from His word. Blind obedience, subjugation, and lack of original thought is not the true Christian way, and casts a shadow of cultism akin to islam over what is supposed to be the antithesis of those very things.

I believe a true Christian comes willingly and lovingly to His word, in their own time, in their own way, thus becoming part of God’s family because they alone want to be not because they have been conditioned to be, are expected to be, or because someone wants them to be.

I believe one does not have to wear religion on their sleeve for one to be a true Christian. I believe faith can be solely a one-on-one relationship with God with no intrusions needed. I believe that that personal relationship with God is stronger than any human relationship can ever be.

I believe a true Christian does not have to be only an Evangelical or a Fundamentalist, but can also be a Roman Catholic, a follower of Orthodoxy, a Protestant, a Mormon, and even a Jew. I believe that all it really takes to be a true Christian is the heartfelt belief in God’s word and an acceptance of Jesus, his only begotten Son, as the Messiah. There is nothing magical nor complicated about this, however, I believe Obama believes none of this.

And lastly, I believe that united together Christians of ALL denominations can be a powerful force to be reckoned with come November, while divided becoming nothing more than fodder for those who do not believe, and especially for those like Barack Hussein Obama, a muslim down to his very core.

So instead of division and divisiveness amongst all those who call themselves Christians, and this is something Obama and his minions play upon, I wish all true Christians would unite as one behind their common belief in God and His Son, for we all know that together the whole is stronger than the sum of its parts.

As the saying by Marcus Tullius Cicero goes (from a speech he gave on the Roman Senate floor in 58 BC), “A nation can survive fools, and even the ambitious but it cannot survive treason from within.” And I for one believe that this one man is trying to destroy Christian values and beliefs from within by deliberately and calculatingly turning Christian against Christian in all he says and does, for more liberal thinking Christians still side with him against the more conservative Christians, and this Obama is counting on.

I hope and pray that true Christians everywhere, while not having to share my personal beliefs, can at least see some truth in what I have said because our nation’s very survival and return to God’s laws and to the Judeo-Christian beliefs upon which this country was founded, depends on us removing from office the very man who says he is a Christian but who in reality is not now nor has he ever been for his words, actions, and deeds are those against everything a true Christian believes.

A Friendship Dating to 1976 Resonates in 2012

The two young men had woefully little in common: one was a wealthy Mormon from Michigan, the other a middle-class Jew from Israel.

Photo by Israel Hadari

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel with Mitt Romney last year. The two men worked together in the 1970s.

Karen Bleier/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

Mitt Romney speaking via satellite last month to a meeting of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Mr. Romney has criticized the Obama administration over its policies toward Israel.

But in 1976, the lives of Mitt Romney and Benjamin Netanyahu intersected, briefly but indelibly, in the 16th-floor offices of the Boston Consulting Group, where both had been recruited as corporate advisers. At the most formative time of their careers, they sized each other up during the firm’s weekly brainstorming sessions, absorbing the same profoundly analytical view of the world.

That shared experience decades ago led to a warm friendship, little known to outsiders, that is now rich with political intrigue. Mr. Netanyahu, the prime minister of Israel, is making the case for military action against Iran as Mr. Romney, the likely Republican presidential nominee, is attacking the Obama administration for not supporting Mr. Netanyahu more robustly.

The relationship between Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Romney — nurtured over meals in Boston, New York and Jerusalem, strengthened by a network of mutual friends and heightened by their conservative ideologies — has resulted in an unusually frank exchange of advice and insights on topics like politics, economics and the Middle East.

When Mr. Romney was the governor of Massachusetts, Mr. Netanyahu offered him firsthand pointers on how to shrink the size of government. When Mr. Netanyahu wanted to encourage pension funds to divest from businesses tied to Iran, Mr. Romney counseled him on which American officials to meet with. And when Mr. Romney first ran for president, Mr. Netanyahu presciently asked him whether he thought Newt Gingrich would ever jump into the race.

Only a few weeks ago, on Super Tuesday, Mr. Netanyahu delivered a personal briefing by telephone to Mr. Romney about the situation in Iran.

“We can almost speak in shorthand,” Mr. Romney said in an interview. “We share common experiences and have a perspective and underpinning which is similar.”

Mr. Netanyahu attributed their “easy communication” to what he called “B.C.G.’s intellectually rigorous boot camp.”

“So despite our very different backgrounds,” he said through an aide, “my sense is that we employ similar methods in analyzing problems and coming up with solutions for them.”

The ties between Mr. Romney and Mr. Netanyahu stand out because there is little precedent for two politicians of their stature to have such a history together that predates their entry into government. And that history could well influence decision-making at a time when the United States may face crucial questions about whether to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities or support Israel in such an action.

Mr. Romney has suggested that he would not make any significant policy decisions about Israel without consulting Mr. Netanyahu — a level of deference that could raise eyebrows given Mr. Netanyahu’s polarizing reputation, even as it appeals to the neoconservatives and evangelical Christians who are fiercely protective of Israel.

In a telling exchange during a debate in December, Mr. Romney criticized Mr. Gingrich for making a disparaging remark about Palestinians, declaring: “Before I made a statement of that nature, I’d get on the phone to my friend Bibi Netanyahu and say: ‘Would it help if I say this? What would you like me to do?’

Martin S. Indyk, a United States ambassador to Israel in the Clinton administration, said that whether intentional or not, Mr. Romney’s statement implied that he would “subcontract Middle East policy to Israel.”

“That, of course, would be inappropriate,” he added.

Mr. Netanyahu insists that he is neutral in the presidential election, but he has at best a fraught relationship with President Obama. For years, the prime minister has skillfully mobilized many Jewish groups and Congressional Republicans to pressure the Obama administration into taking a more confrontational approach against Iran.

“To the extent that their personal relationship would give Netanyahu entree to the Romney White House in a way that he doesn’t now have to the Obama White House,” Mr. Indyk said, “the prime minister would certainly consider that to be a significant advantage.”

Taliban commander: "There is no more or less in Sharia. If people are not happy with Sharia law, there is no other law for happiness"

Mullah Dawran misunderstands Islam to the extent that he thinks that Sharia is unchanging, and that it calls for the subjugation of women and warfare against Infidels and the Muslims who collaborate with those Infidels.

Surely some Western "moderate" from Hamas-linked CAIR or someone like BoyReza Aslan will quickly go to Afghanistan to explain to Mullah Dawran that he is getting Sharia all wrong, wrong, wrong.

"Commander's words shed light on Taliban views: Group's eastern leader candidly discusses Afghan forces, morality police, and how they might act if returned to power," by Qais Azimy and Mujib Mashal for al-Jazeera, April 4 (thanks to Elias):

...In an exclusive interview with Mullah Dawran, a senior Taliban commander in northeastern Kunar province, we raised some of these issues. While he is only one voice in an increasingly fractured movement, his views are indicative of the morale and mentality of many who fight for the Taliban.

Dawran has managed to escape several US military raids, in one of which he reportedly lost his wife and two children.

Below is an edited transcript of the conversation.

Tell us about the nature of the fight in your area?
The national army and police, they are tied to the government. In accordance with Sharia, fighting them is our obligation. This year, we believe we are passing through a difficult stage and god willing, this will be the year of victory. We have increased our operations compared to other years....We have given sacrifices so that a Sharia system comes. Security can't come without a Sharia system, the whole world - enemies and friends - has realized that.

What are you trying to achieve from such operations?
We have two goals: one, if we still see these people in the areas where we fight for the cause, we can't say we have won, that we have brought a Sharia system. Because in a Sharia system, you first get rid of the infidels and then those who committed big sins - the traitors. They fought alongside the infidels against Islam. The second goal is that when the Americans leave, they leave us these saplings. These saplings that they planted with their hands - we want to uproot them so they dry out.

Has there been a change of policy in how you fight Afghan forces compared to foreign forces?
For us, there was never doubt in their kufr [infidelity] - that when we announced jihad on the Americans, we included the Afghan forces in it. Whether killing them is allowed or not - that decision was made when we initially announced our jihad. But we used our Islamic and Afghan mercy, thinking they will realize they are fighting for foreigners and against their religion. But they did not understand that. Every day, their damage increases and not lessens. We sent out statements, we released them [Afghan soldiers] when we captured them, and we were more flexible on them in battle....

In the areas of your control, we have seen morality police - the Vice and Virtue. How widespread is that? And what kind of activities are you after?
Thanks to god, we have religious scholars, Ulema, who decide. We have lifted our weapons for saving these people and one of our obligations is to save the children, the elders, these people from sin; if people cut their beards, if they smoke or chew tobacco, if they commit larger sins like theft. We try to prevent any vice. In the past, we tried to tell these people nicely. But more recently, the issue has… because we have conquered the area, people have to come to the mosques five times a day.

How about women? In your area, what is implemented regarding restrictions on women?
This is one thing we can say we have been lucky with from the past. I say luck because god will have mercy on those who spend their lives in the shadow of the Sharia. Allah ordered veiling and all our women oblige by it. If people don't oblige - no one does not oblige. This is a rarity. Those who cry of human rights or call themselves democrats say they give rights. The rights that Islam has given to a woman, no other religion has - that she sit quietly in her home, veiled. That she take care of food and clothes for her husband. See, the Americans say they have given their women rights. There is nothing more difficult than war and the Americans have given their women a back-pack and a weapon on their shoulder and they fight to give us rights.

What about female education? Do you allow that?
You saw that our schools are active and open in the area. Until a female reaches blogh [puberty], she should learn. Here in the area, we have ulema in every school. I have to say one thing clearly: there is a hadith [prophet's saying] that everyone has heard that education is an obligation of every man and woman. But that hadith has not said the infidel way of education, or western way of education. That hadith means Quranic education. Education does not mean that a woman should lose her honour and dignity. If the leaders of the Emirate see education beyond this [puberty age] necessary - under circumstances that covering up of the women is obeyed - we will see then. Now, we only talk of education until puberty because here the system is weaker.

And would you allow women to work in offices?
Sharia does not allow that. We should leave this until we conquer some offices, and if there is need for work, we will gather the ulema to decide based on Sharia. That if a woman works, under what conditions should she work? Only if it is permitted under Sharia orders. If not, then working with a stranger, with a foreigner - even the voice of a woman is banned on a strange man. Allah says in his book that the man should lower his gaze and so should the woman - if looking is not permitted, talking is not permitted, then how can they work? Here, we want a Sharia system. Whatever is allowed in Sharia, we will not disobey. We do not want a western or democracy system.

What about the parliament? Would you permit them to be MPs?
The way it is now, this parliament - we reject this entirely. This does not exist in the Sharia, this is a western system, a democracy system. Their going to this parliament and joining this kind of a parliament in itself could be a reason for jihad - that our women are this free now. Listen to BBC, how they speak. Hearing a woman's voice is banned on others. They speak on the radio, in the parliament, on TV - while not being covered - and the whole world hears their voice. I want to say this briefly: if Sharia does not allow it, we will not accept it.

Do you see the end to this war in fighting, or through negotiations?
The history of jihad shows the result of jihad is either victory or martyrdom on the battlefield. In negotiations, Sharia is stepped on. When you and I talk, and we have different opinions, I am obliged to accept some of your views if you accept mine, otherwise it would not be negotiations. I approve such negotiations that will not step on Sharia. The kind of negotiations that steps on the blood of the martyrs and the Sharia - neither will anyone carry out that kind of negotiations, nor are we ready for it.

If the Taliban come back to power, will there be a difference in how they treated people?
There is no more or less in Sharia. If people are not happy with Sharia law, there is no other law for happiness.

You mean it will be the same - the Vice and Virtue police will be patrolling, asking about beard lengths, destroying cassettes? The exact same?
No. You see, we want Sharia system for these people and they accept it. The same thing might have been said harshly once and people might be unhappy. This time, we - the ulema and all institutions - will try to educate a person of its benefits. That, look, we want you to grow your beard: it is the tradition of the prophet, it is the beauty of a human. The ulema say that if a person shaves his beard, it is like someone hurting their nose or ear. Those who hurt their nose or ears are crazy. Same with prayer: that is what separates a Muslim and an infidel. We will be soft - but they will have to pray, it is not like we will pardon them. Previously, we were harsh on prayers. This time, we will show them the disadvantages of not praying. Sharia does not change, or that we be lenient on people on things related to Sharia.

WND EXCLUSIVE

Russia expecting attack on Iran by summer

Editor’s Note: The following report is excerpted from Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin, the premium online newsletter published by the founder of WND.

WASHINGTON – The Russian military anticipates that an attack will occur on Iran by the summer and has developed an action plan to move Russian troops through neighboring Georgia to stage in Armenia, which borders on the Islamic republic, informed Russian sources say in a report in Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin.

Russian Security Council head Viktor Ozerov said that Russian General Military Headquarters has prepared an action plan in the event of an attack on Iran.

Dmitry Rogozin, who recently was the Russian ambassador to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO, warned against an attack on Iran.

“Iran is our neighbor,” Rogozin said. “If Iran is involved in any military action, it’s a direct threat to our security.” Rogozin now is the deputy Russian prime minister and is regarded as anti-Western. He oversees Russia’s defense sector.

Russian Defense Ministry sources say that the Russian military doesn’t believe that Israel has sufficient military assets to defeat Iranian defenses and further believes that U.S. military action will be necessary.

Russia’s purpose in moving its troops would be not only to protect its own vital regional interests but possibly to assist Iran in the event of an attack. Sources add that a Russian military buildup in the region could result in the Russian military potentially engaging Israeli forces, U.S. forces or both.

Informed sources say that the Russians have warned of “unpredictable consequences” in the event Iran is attacked, with some Russians saying that the Russian military would intervene because its vital interests in region would be threatened.

The influential Russian Nezavisimaya Gazeta newspaper has quoted a Russian military source as saying that the situation forming around Syria and Iran “causes Russia to expedite the course of improvement of its military groups in the South Caucasus, the Caspian, Mediterranean and Black Sea regions.”

This latest information comes from a series of reports and leaks from official Russian spokesmen and government news agencies who say that an Israeli attack is all but certain by the summer.

Because of the impact on Russian vital interests in the region, sources say that Russian preparations for such an attack began two years ago when Russian Military Base 102 in Gyumri, Armenia, was modernized. It is said to occupy a major geopolitical position in the region.

Families of Russian servicemen from the Russian base at Gyumri in Armenia close to the borders of Georgia and Turkey already have been evacuated, Russian sources say.

“Military Base 102 is a key point, Russia’s outpost in the South Caucasus,” a Russian military source told the newspaper. “It occupies a very important geopolitical position, but the Kremlin fears lest it should lose this situation.”

The Patriot Factor

I’m an American Patriot who refuses to let our beloved country be changed into something unrecognizable to us by a man who wants to radically change and destroy our America and take away our children’s future. We patriots ARE the grassroots movement and we bloggers must spread the truth about the corrupt and traitorous Obama regime and his sanctioned islamization of America before it’s too late.
I'm also co-host with Craig Andresen of RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS on CPR Worldwide Media and co-head of CPR's Journalism Department again with Craig Andresen.